Can we win in the climate change battle?
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
Spelling and grammar points
With 3 votes and 18 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
~ 0 / 5,000
The "Climate change battle" arguably is a battle that is just named "Climate change" for some reason, and if it is being phrased as a battle, it will be treated as one.
What does "Battle" mean?
People have generally regarded a battle on default as something winnable. If anything, what a term means depends on how people use it, and people use it to represent something with a "winnable" attribute.
No matter what the battle is, against an army or against a gun duelist, the eradication of the other side can be treated as a victory on your side. Such objectives are never impossible(Inter-entity conflicts are never logically contradictory) so winning a battle is always technically possible.
If we are losing a battle, we could just switch to the other side and say we are winning it. Nothing logically forbids us from doing it. If something is losable it is winnable. If Con does not prove that this battle will end a tie, Pro wins.
Full Forfeit, Extend. Vote CON.